(no subject)

[leticia]

From http://peninsuladailynews.com/article/20081017/news/310179995

In addition, the congressman[Norm Dicks] renewed his pledges to support public projects to repair infrastructure, to mandate public campaign financing, and to require pay parity for female employees.

Cloud[challenger], though, got the most audience reaction when, on the equal pay issue, he said, "Women are different from men. ... Men are useless if they do not have a paycheck. Women are not."

Follow that to its logical conclusion. A woman does not need to be paid the same as a man because... because why? Because she has other value. Like what? A woman shouldn't be paid equally because she is supposed to be providing access to her body to a man for money?

So are you talking about a) requiring women to get married by law or b) legalizing prostitution?

My intrinsic value has nothing to do with it, any more than does a man's. The value of a person has nothing to do with the expenses of living.

First of all, I disagree with your premise that my plumbing is some how of more intrinsic 'value' than a man's. Being a feminist, I believe that we're /equal/. I also note that value that can't be converted to cash isn't actually value at all, and by that standard, your 'value' is a blatant lie, since women are verifiably less valued - paid less - in our society than men.

Second, even if that premise was somehow accurate, if I can't convert it to money, I can't pay my rent. I can't buy gas. I can't go to college. So any non-monetized 'value' is entirely irrelevant in terms of cash value of my labor.

You fail, plz try again.

Comments

[hypatiasghost.livejournal.com]

Damn you, disseminator of patriarchy Cloud! *sighs!* This sort of thinking hurts men as well as hurting women! Most men are so oppressed by this concept -- "I only have value if I am being paid and providing" -- that they don't even realize that they might like something else out of life, like staying home and raising kids, or working in jobs they enjoy that don't pay as well as their spouses' jobs.

And, of course, everything you also said about the ridiculousness of what this implies for women.

*loves*! Feminism makes everyone free!

[letiwolf.livejournal.com]

I wish I didn't work for the paper, because I'm not allowed to write a letter to the editor calling him on this bullshit.

[mihrimah.livejournal.com]

Alternative man-hating feminist interpretation: Women don't measure their own self-worth in terms of money-earning, so they don't need paychecks to feel good about themselves. Actually have heard this one!

We can't legalize prostitution, because that would be OMG IMMORAL. This guy probably wouldn't have any problems with requiring women to marry (men, of course), or with saying that an unmarried woman is under her father's or brother's control. It says he got the most audience reaction from that comment; was it good, or bad? Curiosity wants to kill me.

There's a Amendment on the table out here that wants to add a definition of "Person" to the state Constitution, where personhood begins at the moment of fertilization. I could spend hours on what's wrong with that and still not be finished; needless to say, I made sure to update my registration info so I don't miss out on voting against it. GAH.

I don't get much of a paycheck, but I know I'm not useless. My usefulness is entirely dependent upon having thumbs with which to open cans of catcrack, so if I ever lose my thumbs then I might be in trouble.

[letiwolf.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. OF course, the point remains that if a fetus is a person, rather than part of the woman's body, that makes it guilty of rape, assault, trespass, and vandalism at the least if the woman asks it to leave and it doesn't. :p

[letiwolf.livejournal.com]

Also, I add to this: Legalizing prostitution isn't a good thing in my opinion from a feminist perspective because most legalized prostitution schemes in practice protect the /johns/ and the /pimps/, not the women.